Tweet
To be continued...
-
To be continued... -
To be continued... -
Mystery solved!
The correct name of Mr. Batcbard, a.k.a. Mr. Batchard, was in fact...
Comment
-
Albert Bachert and Charles Bradlaugh
Charles Bradlaugh was a controversial English 19th-century politician, activist and atheist. From 1880 until his death in 1891, he was a member of Parliament and sat with the Liberals.
In an 1887 publication, Bradlaugh claimed that the Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, and other prominent Conservatives had given cheques to a political lobbyist called Samuel Peters. Bradlaugh implied the cheques were intended to pay for disruptions to rallies of unemployed workers in Trafalgar Square.
1st court case
Samuel Peters, the lobbyist, brought an action for libel against Charles Bradlaugh. The case was heard in London on April 18, 1888. Lord Salisbury and Peters both testified, denying under oath that money had ever passed between them. Bradlaugh, who conducted his own defence, admitted he had never seen a cheque from Lord Salisbury payable to Peters. Although Bradlaugh initially indicated he’d be calling several witnesses, he ended up calling only one, George Raymond, who gave vague testimony about seeing two cheques for fairly modest amounts, signed by people he thought were Conservatives; he didn’t say to whom the cheques were payable. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and awarded Samuel Peters damages of £300.
Waiting at the court building on the day of the trial was Albert Bachert, forced to be there because of a subpoena issued by Bradlaugh’s solicitor. However, he wasn’t called as a witness. No record has been found suggesting what Bachert’s testimony might have been or why he wasn’t called to testify. The day before the trial, Bradlaugh’s solicitor sent Bachert a postal order for ten shillings for his “attendance as a witness on behalf of the defendant.” The solicitor subsequently stated ten shillings per day “is full scale allowance for a witness in his position.”
Bachert believed he should receive two or three guineas for the time he’d spent with Charles Bradlaugh’s solicitor and at the courthouse. He claimed he’d written directly to the politician at his home and at the House of Commons, requesting extra payment. He received no reply. He heard that Bradlaugh was in debt due to political difficulties and decided not to pursue the matter but later learned from newspaper reports that the politician’s supporters had organized an appeal to pay his debts and that the appeal had raised £2,000.
2nd court case
On October 5, 1888, “a respectable-looking young man” went to the Thames Police Court and asked the magistrate, Franklin Lushington, whether he wasn’t entitled to his fee for attending the April trial. The magistrate’s reply was to the effect that the applicant should take up the matter in the county court.
Perhaps because of Bradlaugh’s name being mentioned, the case was widely reported throughout England. Different newspapers printed several different versions of the magistrate’s exact words. No newspaper seems to have reported the applicant’s name correctly; some gave it as Benchard, others stated it was Batchard. The Echo, a London paper, probably intended to report the name as Batchard but printed it as Batcbard because of a typographical error. Hence the title of this thread.
The Times report of the case quoted the magistrate as saying: “Mr. Bradlaugh was bound, as well as every one else, to pay an honest debt. Applicant’s remedy was to sue him in the County Court.” Five days later Charles Bradlaugh wrote to The Times and said he read their quotation of the magistrate “as saying that I ought to pay my debts, and as recommending the witness to sue me in the County Court.” He enclosed a letter from Lushington refuting the words attributed to the magistrate in The Times. He also enclosed a letter from his solicitor that confirmed the law firm had sent ten shillings payment to “Mr. Bechert” on April 17. The Times published all these letters on October 12.
The reports of the case in a chain of newspapers owned by The Observer Printing Company in the Lancashire and Cheshire areas were even more unfavourable to Charles Bradlaugh’s reputation. The October 13 edition of the Lymm Observer headlined its report of the case with: “Mr. Bradlaugh and his Debts – A Considerate Creditor Wants Mr. Bradlaugh to Pay-up at Last.”
3rd court case
On April 16, 1889, Charles Bradlaugh brought an action for libel against The Observer Printing Company, alleging the headline in the Lymm Observer showed “express malice.” In his opening statement, Bradlaugh’s lawyer summarized the April 1888 court case. As part of that summary, he was reported as saying: “…in the course of that proceeding it was thought necessary to have in attendance at the trial a German cabinetmaker named Batchard. He was in attendance for one day only, and he was paid 10s. for that attendance.” Several witnesses appeared for the plaintiff and the defence. Bachert wasn’t amongst them. After a short deliberation, the jury found for the plaintiff and awarded Bradlaugh £25 damages.
Again, the case was widely reported, including a detailed account in The London Daily Chronicle. It was in response to this account that Albert Bachert wrote to the paper’s editor, identifying himself as the unpaid witness and correcting the description of himself from “a German cabinetmaker” to “an English engraver.”
Sources
Charles Bradlaugh - Wikipedia
Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, 22 April 1888, page 4
The Echo, 5 October 1888, page 4
The Evening Standard, 5 October 1888, page 1
The Times, 6 October 1888, page 4, and 12 October 1888, page 4
The Manchester Evening News, 16 April 1889, page 3
The Daily Telegraph, 17 April 1889, page 3
The London Daily Chronicle, 17 April 1889, page 6 and 18 April 1888, page 7
Comment
Comment